in defence of jamie & the sugar tax
The Sugar Tax is not so great news for these guys
If you asked me around 5 years ago, I never thought I’d be saying this, but I actually think Jamie Oliver is a pretty decent bloke, with some good ideas, and his heart is most definitely in the right place. The recent Sugar Tax proposal seems to have been blown way out of proportion with many people outraged that the cheeky chappy is trying to tell us all how to live our lives. The thought of it, someone trying to improve the lives of thousands of children (and adults)!? What a complete tosser.
Anyway, it has to be said that there are plenty of people also in support of the argument, the Guardian reckons over half of people polled support some kind of taxes on unhealthy food, although I guess they would say that 🙂 – I reckon in the general public at large the support is much lower, but maybe I’m being pessimistic on my fellow human (jelly) beans.
benefits of a sugar tax
To sum up, for those of you who haven’t seen Jamie’s TV show or read much about it, Jamie proposes that a good start off on our path to a healthier nation would be to introduce a tax on soft drinks with a high sugar content. The simple fact that there are higher prices on sugary drinks will encourage or force consumers to opt for lower sugar content drinks. There will of course still be a large number of sugary drinks sold, and those will attract more tax revenue for the government. It is obvious that we’d therefore get an instant double whammy of a less obese population + more tax revenue but let’s talk about the benefits more in depth now, which are:
- A healthier nation: This is good in and of itself of course but also it will require less NHS spending on sugar related illnesses such as diabetes and other obesity related diseases, and it should hopefully save on your dentist bill as well!
- A healthier economy: A healthier nation also means a more productive nation as there are less days off sick and more people available to work. So it should in theory be a positive boost, albeit maybe a small one, to the economy as well, which again means more taxes for the government as all economic activity is taxed.
- A healthier NHS: As pointed out above NHS spending should drop on obesity related areas but also the tax from the sugary drink can be used to pump straight back into the NHS to pay directly for treatment for those that need it, so in theory this should ease the strain on the already overstretched NHS. This would leave more money for people with conditions that were not inflicted by lifestyle choices such as this little lad with muscular dystrophy 1.
- Less externalities therefore a more fair tax: An Externality is “the cost or benefit that affects a party who did not choose to incur that cost or benefit”. In other words, as mentioned above, treatment is paid for by the people that decide to consume sugary drinks, rather than by everyone in the country who pays tax, which is what happens with the current model. Personally I think it is fairer if those who consume sugary drinks pay for the treatment of those who consume too much of them. If you disagree with that point then I would love to hear your reasoning behind that!
- Corporations will provide healthier options: With declining sales in the unhealthy drinks companies will look to develop healthier options for us to consume, which in turn will bring even more health benefits for the nation. Those that do not change with the times will fade out and die. Tough shit. I’d rather a company that produces crap dies than actual people!
- It’s already been proven to work: They’ve already introduced a sugary drinks tax in Mexico, and lo and behold, it worked.
- It’s just the start: Once we see the benefits of a sugary drinks tax this will hopefully spur on the taxing of other unhealthy foods such as crisps and cookies. Again the “not that well known for it’s forward thinking” Mexico has already done this. Salut! to you, Mexico!
the arguments against a sugar tax
Despite generally running on a low information diet, what’s going on in the news does tend to filter through to you via osmosis. So I heard the furore about the sugar tax from a few members of friends and family. I decided to pick up a copy of the Metro to see what the public’s arguments were against the sugar tax, in the letters section 2. It turns out that there was not one single argument that could be backed up with logic, most in fact are quite laughable in their feebleness and boil down to people not liking being told what to do and that “we live in a free country” etc…
I will go through them now for your amusement.
I love chocolate. I eat it after most meals and for snacks, and I’m a size eight. Why should the rest of us have to pay 20 percent tax on sugary foods because some children have bad diets, do not control how much they eat and do not exercise enough? Steph, London
Congratulations Steph, you are probably about 17 and/or are the one in twenty who have a ridiculously high metabolism and/or don’t eat all that much else apart from your beloved choco treats. Do you really not give two shits about the rest of your fellow human race?
To blame it on children seems a overly harsh. Children don’t usually get to choose what they eat, and bad habits tend to echo down through the generations. The change will have to come from external pressures, and a sugar tax is a great way to change people’s behaviour.
Also, I would love to see your dental bill and waistline in twenty years time, all that choco is going to catch up with you eventually love!
Sugar tax? Really? What happened to parents saying no to their kids. Jack, London
You know what would make it much easier for them to say no? If the bad stuff was more expensive than the good stuff. Sweets used to be much more expensive as a percentage of disposable income and therefore my mother, for example, would just say “I can’t afford it” (basically because it was true as well). Nowadays most people can afford it so it’s much harder to say no.
It’s not sugar that’s the issue. It’s laziness. Get out exercising. Michael, Bucks
Err… no Michael. As the ermine has eloquently pointed out you cannot outrun a bad diet. If you consume 2 cans of coke per day you are bumping up your calorie count by around 280 calories. This would take, according to my running app Cardio Trainer, 3 miles of running per day to burn off. And that is only to burn off the excess calories from 2 sugary drinks, let alone whatever else you ate that day!!! I love running but even I cannot be arsed to run 3+ miles a day. So most people in this country are better off leaving the sugary drinks on the shelf mate!
We don’t want a nanny state. Taxation is not the right way, education is. Vernon Quaintance, Surrey
Ding ding ding!!! We have a Buzzword Bingo winner! Anyone parroting the phrase “Nanny State” should instantly lose the argument anyway but I actually disagree that further eduction on these matters will have any effect.
1) It is much harder to get through to every single person in the country via the means of eduction. Some just won’t receive it, others won’t understand it, and others still will receive it and ignore it.
2) The basics of a good diet are now well known and have been in the public domain for years. It is, or should be, well known that too much sugar is bad for you yet people still consume far too much of it. So what do you think (even) more education is actually going to do?
Hit people where it hurts, their pockets, that is when people notice, and the message will hit home to every single person in the country. No need to print off 60 millions pamphlets on the dangers of consuming too much sugar, then!
Surely it’s up to the individual whether they choose to eat sugary things or not? Why do the rest of us have to pay for those people who can’t control what they eat? Dan, Bristol
We should be able to choose what we want to eat and drink without penalties. Cigarettes and alcohol have increased in taxes. Are we not allowed any sweeteners in life? Jacqueline Phillips, London
Hello Dan, you are already paying for those that can’t control what they eat via your taxes which are being used up for their NHS treatment my lad!!! Please see my arguments #3 and #4 above for further info. And Jesus F Christ Jacqueline, please do the same. *Without penalty*… are you serious?! Do you not realise the penalties you are dishing out on yourself with a horribly bad diet? And are you arguing that cigs and booze should not be taxed either here or what, as it suspiciously sounds like you are? You have clearly not heard of the concept of Externalities either, if you are.
I’m not convinced a sugar tax is the way forward. Let us concentrate on getting food manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar in their products. Cal, Merseyside
Hmm… *scratches chin*… yes, yes… you are on the right tracks here Cal…. but do you know the quickest and easiest way to get manufacturers to reduce the amount of sugar in their products? Yes that’s right! Tax the ones that do have high sugar content in them!!! We got there in the end, didn’t we!?
Again on the brighter side, there were nearly an equal numbers of letters supporting the sugar tax, but it is harder to make fun of them as they have logically sound arguments put forward so we’ll leave those ones alone 🙂
yet more opinions on the sugar tax!
Well that’s the public “done”. What about the more scholarly amongst us, who are paid to write words on a page and therefore expected to put up some pretty strong facts or logic to back up their opinions? Let’s ‘ave a look shall we?
I haven’t even bothered reading this FT opinon piece on it (because it’s behind a paywall or I have to answer a bloody questionnaire to read it, no thanks) but the sub title gives us a good insight as to what garbage may be concealed inside:
Why target only sugary drinks when we also gorge on sweets, cakes, takeaways and booze?
What a ridiculously shit argument that is. Can you imagine the first lawmakers when civilisation was developing proposing outlawing, say, murder, and someone piping up with: “Why target murder when theft, vandalism and assault are also rife?!!”. And as far as I am aware Jamie has never said he only wanted to target sugary drinks, simply that it was a good place to start (i.e. see #7 in my list above!)
Now onto the New Statesmen, who reckons that a sugar idea is “classist”. A big WTF already on the title there, I can’t really argue against this point as it seems like a rather abstract argument so let’s dig further to see what they’re actually on about:
…the sugar tax will just be a tax on the poor…
… This tax would be one that either capitalises on the poverty that has forced people into poor diets in the first place, or restricts their already very limited freedom.
Really, are you serious? So Coca-Cola is cheaper than water now is it? Seriously, that is the only argument needed IMO to blow this whole shit-can of an article out of the water but let’s continue in the interests of fairness…
If our Lord and Saviour Jamie Oliver wants people to stop eating so much crap, he should campaign for better welfare.
It has been shown time and again that the signal people respond to the strongest by a long measure is price. I don’t see how giving people more money to buy even more crap food is going to help them. Next!
If he wants people to eat less sugar, he should fight for more breakfast clubs in schools so students don’t go and buy a Galaxy at break because they’re hungry.
And where does little Jonny five bellies get the money for the Galaxy in the first place? I thought you said these people were on the breadline!? If the Galaxy cost far more than say, an apple, then maybe he’d have to buy the apple instead. D’uh!!!
Campaign against the squeeze on the NHS and nurses’ pay, so those families with working parents can afford your harissa chicken salads over another ready meal.
Well laa-dee-dah. What kind of make believe world is this person living in when they think that someone is choosing ready meals over harissa chicken salads simply on price grounds alone!? 🙂
Maybe the sugar tax would work, but if we’re living in a society where someone has to choose between having a Sprite and feeding their kid, I don’t think obesity is our biggest issue.
I really don’t think that is the choice people are facing (and if it is, then WTF are they playing at!). For those morons that are actually buying sugary drinks over other real foods then they should be priced out of the market on cans of pop. The simplest solutions are often the best, non?
Look, I admit, that last article was a particularly easy target as it seems the author has just decided to take their pre-existing political views and squeeze them into a current news story, but that doesn’t make it the right thing to do. For the record I’m not against campaigning against NHS pay or for more breakfast clubs (on the contrary in fact), I just think people should stick to the bloody point in question! And crucially all of the things mentioned would not be harmed in any way by the introduction of a sugar tax, for example NHS pay will not have to drop because of a sugar tax. Those two things seem so unrelated I don’t really see why they are on the same page.
what do you think of the sugar tax?
Well I think I’ve made my views pretty clear here… 🙂
What about you? Do you support the sugar tax? Why/Why not? Let me know!
Cheers!
Notes:
- We went to a charity gig the other day and as well as donating I thought sharing the link on here was the least I could do. Please note that the charity night raised about £11,000 so don’t worry too much that there is only £30 at the time of writing on the just giving page! But still if you can spare a few quid, that would be bloody marvelous of you. Thanks! ↩
- I am starting to think I should read this more often as it has provided some great material for this post!!! ↩
I’m totally against increased taxation on certain products. The huge taxes on tobacco and alcohol have already proven that they have little impact on consumption from already heavy users (which, if you’ll excuse the pun, are the ones this sugar tax will be targeting).
Instead I’d much prefer they legislate to make packaging more clearer about what is in each product and how bad it is for you. The green/yellow/red some companies use is a good start but gives no real relative reference and always has ridiculous portion size uses.
Hi ERG,
If you are going to come out with such an extraordinary claim please at least back it up with a link with some evidence in future? 😉
I did a quick google and tried to find an unbiased source of info and the World Bank seems like a fairly good candidate for that:
http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTHEALTHNUTRITIONANDPOPULATION/EXTETC/0,,contentMDK:20365226~menuPK:478891~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~theSitePK:376601,00.html
They say:
“Scores of studies have shown that increased taxes reduce the number of smokers and the number of smoking-related deaths. Price increases induce some smokers to quit and prevent others from becoming regular or persistent smokers. They also reduce the number of ex-smokers returning to cigarettes and reduce consumption among continuing smokers. Children and adolescents are more responsive to changes in the price of consumer goods than adults-that is, if the price goes up, they are more likely to reduce their consumption. This intervention would therefore have a big impact on them. Similarly, people on low incomes are more price-responsive than those on high -incomes, so there is likely to be a bigger impact in developing countries where tobacco consumption is still increasing. Models developed for this report show that tax increases that would raise the real price of cigarettes by 10 percent worldwide would cause 40 million smokers alive in 1995 to quit and prevent a minimum of 10 million tobacco-related deaths.”
That it may not affect the heaviest users (nice pun btw : ) is neither here nor there if the overall effect of the tax is a large positive one for the rest of the nation, which it will be.
I agree that better labeling is also a good idea as well.
Cheers!
hi Firestarter! I agree with you that Jamie Oliver is basically a good bloke. Also, if the sugar tax has been proved to work in Mexico, presumably it would also work here. However, re the FT article, is it really a bad idea to discuss whether the remit of such a tax should be broader than just sugary drinks? … If the idea is up for discussion to start with, why not throw around a few ways of approaching it?
Hi Cathybird 🙂
Sounds like we’re singing from the same hymn sheet here! It just seemed that they were using *that* as an argument against a sugar tax in the first place, which seems bizarre logic. (Admittedly, I didn’t read the whole article so maybe I jumped to the wrong conclusions there… if so then apols to the FT!)
Tax tax tax – why not just legislate and be done? Why does the government feel it need to tax everything!?
What sort of legislation do you suggest in this case, Max?
Cheers!
Top rant, sir, but you’re fighting the wrong fire. We don’t need to tax sugar. We need to frickin’ stop subsidising it first
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/sugar-beet-claiming-payments
http://farmsubsidy.openspending.org/search/?q=British+Sugar
and so on and so on. There may be a case for Jamie at some time, but the shocking regulatory capture making the cost of sugar notably below production cost is a big part of the problem. Subsidising something and then taxing it is a bizarre way to carry on, though I do see Jamie’s point 😉
Agriculture is a special case, yes, we aren’t all going to stop eating any time soon and there are issues of security of the food supply because a lovely globalised world of Ricardian plenty is a brittle and unresilient system which probably won’t survive increases in energy costs and world population. All this might mean some government intervention to smooth the weather cycle and integrate planning over decades rather than months.
But the outrageous and corrupt system we have now, funding agribusiness to destroy our soils, pollute our watercourses and generally screw things up royally to get their subsidised profits is what needs changing, and Jamie’s sugar tax is putting lipstick on a pig.
Agreed we were all poorer in the past, but quite frankly if we have people that live so unintentionally that they seriously damage their children’s long term health because they can’t face saying no to them then we really do need to stop encouraging these people to be parents, we may as well have the children raised by wolves. They’re not up to the job, and the cost will be externalised on the rest of us for no earthly gain, indeed a net increase in human misery. Saying no is part of the territory of being a parent FFS.
ermine,
Ah yes I read that in your Coca Cola post:
http://simple-living-in-suffolk.co.uk/2015/10/the-scientific-method-according-to-coca-cola/
Really quite shocking! I agree it is a bit pointless subsidising it on one hand then taxing it on the other. Maybe I’ll drop our Jamie a word 🙂
I agree with everything else you’ve said to be honest. Great comment! I definitely think parents are becoming slacker, and question the lessons being passed down for each subsequent generation, but I think that is a rant for another day 😉
@earlyretirementguy I would dispute the fact that taxation has had little impact on both tobacco and alcohol, as statistics show a steady decrease in both. Yes, it is of course more challenging to decrease those that are heavy users, and in any heavy usage scenario, if the user really wants to continue at the same rate, they will continue.
However, we are talking about a significant amount of the population, whereby the norm is to continue over consumption, which needs to be addressed. Education on its own will not be enough, and requires an incentive to do so. Manufacturers will not solve the issue, and will fight to continue to make packaging unclear, as has been seen with the upcoming release of the WHO recommendations, and the lobbying within the US.
A sugar tax, although not perfect, is the best solution at this moment in time.
Cheers for the comment Ej!
I can’t see the moral objection to another ‘sin’ tax, since we already have them for fags and booze.
I’m not so sure that it would have much effect on what people eat, though.
Diet seems to be one of those things – like money – where everybody knows what is the right thing to do, but 80% of people do the opposite anyway.
Deferred gratification – passing the marshmallow test – seems to be a big problem for some people, and I’m not sure putting the prices up will make them change.
Hi Mike,
This is a fair point you raise! The marshmellow test is a really interesting one, here is a link for those that haven’t read about it yet:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanford_marshmallow_experiment
The only think I can come back really is that it seems to have worked well in Mexico so far, so why not here?
Cheers!
I’m with Jamie on this one.
The only way is to hit people in the pockets – no amount of education or extra info on packaging is going to deter people.
We’re already paying taxes to prop up the NHS as it struggles to cope with increasing numbers of people with diabetes or other weight-related illnesses.
There’s a generation of iphone/ipad addicted children, brought up on cheap sugary drinks and doing little/no exercise who will be doomed to ill-health in adulthood.
Yea weenie! Now we’re talking!
Great comment! 🙂
“but maybe I’m being pessimistic on my fellow human (jelly) beans” – smoothly done 🙂
We need this guy on TV – http://therenegadepharmacist.com/what-happens-one-hour-after-drinking-a-can-of-coke/
Idealistically, I generally prefer a free market than one controlled through regulation and taxation. I don’t sit too well with the idea that some panel can choose what’s best for me, even if they do know best! 🙂 Then again, I cook healthy foods, exercise etc.
With health matters, things take years or decades to have an impact, so people are generally pretty stubborn and look for quick fixes. Are taxes the right idea? I’m not sure, but it wouldn’t impact me too much. So from a completely selfish point of view, sure, why not 🙂
MrZ
I take your point Mr Z. Who are we to tell people what’s good for them?
It’s a tough one, but I fall on the side firmly of if something is not producing an overall benefit for society (or at least neutral), it can pretty much fuck off as far as I’m concerned 🙂
Yeah, I do agree. It’s sad that most people are selfish and make decisions based on themselves and that’s about it.
Great link by the way, cheers!
Before getting into this debate, i believe government need to come up with solid stats regarding how much financial impact sugar have on treasury. Rather than taxing people, it would be good if schools are trained to teach children habit of healthy eating besides NHS can be a great source to create awareness at mass level. More taxes are not going to work at least in short run.
Hi Adnan,
An interesting opinion but I kinda think you may have missed the point that it has already worked in Mexico (in the short run). Why do you think that it wouldn’t work over here as well, just out of interest? Are we that different from our Mexican amigos?
Cheers!
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2014/03/06/school-lunches-lets-move-and-the-vision-of-the-anointed/
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2015/02/10/the-anointed-know-why-youre-fat-and-what-to-do-about-it/
Your argument is a variant of “The Anointed” You know what is good and are able to implement it for yourself, but the ‘others’ must be told and coerced and taxed into line. I’d like the government to back way off telling me what to eat, they’ve got it very wrong in the past, they are heavily influenced by big-ag money, its all just a mess. Let me educate myself and decide for myself, I am sovereign of what goes into my mouth, and I feel everyone must have this right. Education… Yes, we need more of that for sure….
Not that it affects the argument here, but I don’t eat much sugar at all.
Hi Anvil,
Your arguments seem to be a variant of “the straw man”:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man
You are arguing against points that have not been made in the post
1. I never said I can implement it for myself for a start. I eat too much sugar and would welcome higher prices on crap food to put me off further.
2. The government are not telling you what to eat here, it is a TV Chef. The government actually turned this idea down, so now presumably you will support it?
3. The government are actually effectively telling us to eat more sugar – they are allowing tax payers to subsidise sugar production, as evidenced by ermine in the comments above. So, again, now do you oppose this practice? If not then why not? Do you only oppose government telling you what to eat when it suits you?
4. “I am sovereign of what goes into my mouth, and I feel everyone must have this right.” – No one is even asking for a ban of sugary drinks or products here, you are free to consume as many as you want but the idea is that the externalities (NHS treatment) will be paid for by those who decide to abuse their bodies. What is your issue with that?
Let’s move back onto the whole “I don’t like being told what to do” thing…
You, me and everybody else are being told what to do all the time. Most of the time this works out well (i.e. you are not allowed to shoot anyone for no apparent reason, even in America as far as I know). We are even being told what to do and what to eat, for example BY SOFT DRINKS COMPANIES via relentless advertising campaigns. Are you ok with this? If so then why? What is the distinction between scientists advising that sugary drinks are bad for you and maybe the government imposing a tax on that because, let’s face it, no one listened to the scientists in the first place, and a huge corporation shoving advertising down our throats 24/7. Why is one form of coercion acceptable and the other not, to you? Is it because there is the illusion of free will in the latter?
Furher, I scanned the two posts you linked to above and one of the key points for “the annointed” is”
“Because they are so supremely confident in their ideas, The Anointed don’t bother with proof or evidence that the Grand Plan will actually work”
As I have repeatedly mentioned this plan has already worked in Mexico so there is clear evidence that it will actually work. There is also a boat load of science backing up that too much sugar causes type 2 diabetes and other illnesses.
If you don’t like science telling you what is good for you then you also better stop using your laptop because that was built using inventions from, you guessed it, scientists!!! And if you don’t trust them you better not get on a plane any time soon lest if fall out of the sky as they may have gotten their calculations wrong.
Yes… science has been wrong in the past and will be wrong again in the future, but I think we’ve come far enough now (despite what Scott Adams says) that it is pretty much a closed book on diet and especially on the increasing amount of sugar in our diets causing ill effects.
As you can probably tell I’ve got a bee in my bonnet about this but it beggars beleif that there are people out there basking in all of the technological glory of this century yet throw their toys out of their pram the minute a scientist makes a few lifestyle suggestions (and subsequent evidence based policies on top of that)
Finally, you say you don’t eat much sugar yourself so the issue doesn’t really affect you. Surely that is worse than being “the annointed” in the first place. You are alright, Jack, and therefore you think it is fine to leave everyone else to f**k their health up. Great attitude!
By the way, I get what the guy is saying in the fat head posts, if one is slightly overweight it must be bloody annoying with all the media trying to blame it on you, your character, laziness, etc… But that is a different argument altogether and nothing to do with a sugar tax, which is a simple mechanism to get *everyone* – not just obese people – eating less sugar which will make us a healthier nation.
Cheers!
The way I see it, sugar based drinks are the perfect place to start food-based sin taxes because the idea replacement (water from a tap) is readily available and undoubtedly cheaper.
Everyone has the information that they need that too much sugar is horribly bad for you and (on average) will cost the NHS loads when they treat the illnesses caused by this. The fact that the information is available and behaviour has become worse over the years means that people need a financial nudge/penalty/Nanny slapping their face/whatever. There are children with Type II Diabetes, FFS, some people need their lives interfered with because otherwise they make bad choices.
It’s like the plastic bag tax. Everyone knows that it is bad for the environment to throw away millions of plastic bags, but still didn’t bring their own shopping. Now a 5p charge and suddenly everyone remembers.
Perhaps there could be a permit system, so that if you have an annual medical test (paid for by yourself) and demonstrate that you can plan a nutritional meal and maintain a healthy body then you can drink all the syrup you want without paying any sugar tax?
Hi Emma,
Some great points there, and the plastic bag tax is a very good analogy! Small pennies for us but big benefits for overall society. I really can’t see why anyone would not want that.
Haha, your permit system sounds like a great idea 😉
Cheers!
I am unapologetically a huge cynic but unfortunately people in general are stupid and unless given a immediate and concrete reason to stop doing something, even if it’s for their own good, they will find a way to carry on doing it anyway. Continue to educate and extol the virtues of healthy eating in schools and at home but I agree with Weenie, the only way to get a quick and tangible response is to hit people in the pocket.
Quite frankly I can’t see how anyone can object. If you are drinking enough pop for 20p extra on your can of coke to affect your bottom line then sorry pal you are part of the problem, even if you don’t realise it yet.
The NHS spends about 9% of it’s budget treating diabetes with the vast majority coming from type 2. That’s £9.6 million a day according to http://www.diabetes.co.uk/nhs/ and growing. I genuinely fear the ticking time-bomb that is going to go off in 10-20 years, if not sooner, within the NHS.
It shouldn’t be the job of the state to molly coddle people and make their choices for them but as Emma said, people make stupid choices if you let them and I don’t want me or my children to have to pick up the pieces. Fascist rant over 😛
FIbrarian recently posted…A real world lesson in SMART objectives
Hi FIbrarian,
Thanks for those statistics and links… that really is shocking isn’t it!?
Again, just further backs up the case that a small tax could end up saving us millions of £££ per year.
Cheers!
What the heck, everybody is eating huge amounts of sugar here, including myself. If you think this is not true, try a month with a no-sugar-diet. You gonna find that sugar is in practically everything. So any attempt to tackle this bad habit is welcome. But i still see it as an attempt, and we will still need to see how effective it is (check fizzy drinks spending level reported to average income in Mexico and UK to see it more clearly).
Anyway, i am Pro sugar tax.
p.s. F., i need one little idea unrelated to this. I managed to put all my debt on a Zero interest card until 1st of April. Now i have 2 options, to pay it quickly just to finish my year without any debt, or just to pay it right before the interest start. I am paying small amounts every month, I didn’t decided what to do. But in terms of personal motivation, will be something big to finish the year with no debt, so probably i will do this. What do you think?
Hi George,
Great point, I have tried it a couple of times and you are right it is practically impossible! There is clearly low hanging fruit (irony noted) to be targeted and sugary drinks are a good starting point.
Cheers!
In terms of the conundrum, I’m going to be a bit useless and say it’s up to you (in fact it already sounds like you made up your mind to pay it off). Personally I would pay it off at the last minute if it’s interest free, and you sound like the sort of person who is disciplined enough to hold the cash without spending it to do that… but if the motivational factor of being debt free is greater than earning a bit of chump change on interest in your current account then pay that sukka down man! 🙂
Great article TFS and I agree with most of what you say.
I think the arguments about the part poverty pays in people’s ability and motivation to take up a healthy lifestyle is slightly more complex than you would probably grant me though 🙂 What I would be interested in is your views on the responsibilities of the food industry in all this. We have a Conservative government that will be ideologically inclined towards a “light touch” on regulation believing that people should, as far as possible be left to their own devices as far as their health choices are concerned and, on the other hand, industry should be self-regulating and allowed to put profits before all else. Whilst this is the case I am none too hopeful that they will ignore the sugar lobbyists and do the right thing.
AnObserver article from 2014 puts this very well:
It took a protracted battle with the tobacco industry to establish that smoking is lethal. We cannot wait another 30 years war before sugar and fat are brought under control. Of course, individuals have a responsibility to eat healthily but when advertising, marketing, addictive tastes and low prices combine so seductively that we are unaware how effectively a “normal” diet is killing us then that requires profit to take a back seat and government action to come to the fore.
Hi Cerridwen,
Great comment as usual!
I do agree that poverty plays a big part, but that taxing the bad shit is simply the easiest way to turn people away from that and onto the good stuff. Surely no matter how impoverished someone is if they see a bar of chocolate for £2 and a bag of apples for £1 they can work out what the better deal is?
At the moment there is no incentive to go for the good stuff as they are usually at least the same price when it comes to snacks like that, there is no “obvious” good deal for people so they just buy what their taste buds and adverts have told them to prefer.
The harder thing to tackle is educating people to cook from scratch again but I think drinks and snacks are definitely the place to start.
Your conclusions on the current government do sound like the most likely path forward but it doesn’t hurt to keep shouting about our own opinions does it.
Cheers!
I wouldn’t mind seeing a sugar tax, however if it means more people drinking ‘diet’ drinks then I’m not in favour. Those fake sweeteners are worse than white refined sugar. I think there should be a combined approach like they’ve done with smoking: cover the packaging with warnings, make the price 10x more expensive, restrict sales to certain ages upwards, and then hide the products behind shutters! And please, more education.
Hi M,
Thanks for the input. I agree the combined approach sounds like a sensible suggestion, although not sure the radical implementation would go down too well. Take it to the PM 🙂
Cheers!
Great article and it has opened up a really interesting discussion. I agree with everything M from theresvalue said and would extend that to the need for the NHS to provide sugar cessation services like smoking cessation services. I think the reasons people don’t quit sugar are because even if they give up sweet foods they might not realise there is so much sugar in savoury foods and also because they are addicted to it. They need firstly to know the battle they are fighting (i.e. the places sugar is hiding) and secondly they need help to fight that battle. As far as regulating companies go, I think the advertising and glamourizing of foods containing sugar should be banned.
Hi Zoe,
I know you feel strongly about this so thanks for chipping in with your opinions!
I agree most people probably don’t even know what the issue is, and that education and help will be useful on top of a sugar tax: the tax can actually be used to pay for it, for a start.
Cheers!
Ha! Despite being a Canuck on the other side of the pond, I’ll weigh in, given we also have universal health care and the same sweet problem…
I love the comments you included in your post. There is as strong a connection between sugar and chronic disease as there is with cigarettes and lung cancer and heart disease (among others). Taxation is a way of getting those who choose this way of life to subsidize the healthcare system as well as acting as a deterrent to consumption. The arguments around sugar are almost verbatim the arguments around cigarette taxation: choice, personal responsibility, moderation, freedom…the spin doctors are hard at work again. I only hope that junk food manufacturers will eventually face the same types of lawsuits Big Tobacco has faced not that many years ago. We’re definitely getting thin on deniable plausibility here.
Soft drinks are only the beginning I hope. According to “That Sugar Book” and “That Sugar Film”, over 80% of processed foods contain added sugar. Go ahead, try to find something with a UPC code that doesn’t contain some form of added sugar!
Hi Free to Pursue,
All opinions are welcome here whatever side or whatever pond you are from! 🙂
Thanks for the insights and extra info. I agree there are many parallels between junk food and tobacco.
Cheers!